ThinkProgress Logo

Health

Nebraska Passes Unconstitutional Law Outlawing Abortions 20 Weeks After Conception

Yesterday, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman (R-NE) signed legislation “banning most abortions 20 weeks after conception or later on the theory that a fetus, by that stage in pregnancy, has the capacity to feel pain.” The new rule replaces existing law which already prevents women from seeking an abortion after a fetus reaches viability, which is usually reached at about 24-26 weeks of gestation (or 22-24 weeks after conception).

Both the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologist disavow the “science” behind the claim that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks postconception, but the so-called “Pain Capable Unborn Child Act” is more of a political statement than a policy proposal. The bill is “created almost entirely as a vehicle for getting anti-choice legislation challenged and potentially reviewed by the Supreme Court” and grew out of an effort to push one of the nation’s late term abortion providers out of the state:

The Nebraska law grew out of a battle over abortion waged in a far different forum. After an abortion opponent killed Dr. George R. Tiller, a leading late-term abortion provider in Wichita, Kan., last year, Dr. LeRoy H. Carhart, who sometimes worked with Dr. Tiller, said he would carry on his legacy by performing some later-term abortions in his clinic in Bellevue, Neb. Lawmakers in Nebraska were outraged at the prospect of becoming, in the words of one of the state’s leading anti-abortion groups, the next “late-term abortion capital of the Midwest.” Early Tuesday, the state’s nonpartisan unicameral legislature passed the new measure overwhelmingly, 44 to 5.

“I didn’t find this bill,” Mike Flood, the legislature’s speaker said, alluding to Dr. Carhart. “It found Nebraska.” Dr. Carhart could not be reached for comment.

The new law grants exceptions in cases of medical emergency, the pregnant woman’s imminent death, or a serious risk of “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function,” but it’s still ripe for legal challenge. My colleague Jessica Arons has identified at least 3 problems:

1) Under Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, no state can place an undue burden on a woman’s right to abortion before viability, which must be determined on a case by case basis. This bill bans abortion starting at 20 weeks, which is several weeks before most fetuses achieve viability.

2) This bill only has a very narrow physical health exception and a life exception, even though precedent requires exceptions for serious mental health concerns as well.

3) The bill is based on a legislative finding that fetuses can feel pain as early as 20 weeks, when there is no medical consensus on that point and in fact it is hotly disputed. Unfortunately after Gonzales v. Carhart, the legislature may now pass laws based on minority medical views, no matter how fringe and unsubstantiated they are.

“The intention of its supporters is to bring an abortion rights challenge before the United States Supreme Court, where they’re counting on Justice Kennedy to be their swing vote, based on the language he used in his brief from the Gonzalez vs. Carhart decision in 2007. Make no mistake: this is a national issue that impacts us all,” Julie Burkhart of TrustWomenPAC, observes.

Heineman also signed another abortion measure discouraging providers from offering abortion by allowing women to sue doctors that don’t follow a meticulous pre-abortion review process.

Politics

Focus On The Family Returns To Its Homophobia: We’re No Longer Open To A Gay SCOTUS Justice

tony-perkinsLast year, after Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his retirement, speculation mounted about whether President Obama could potentially appoint the first openly gay Justice. Conservatives were unsure how to respond to this possibility. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, initially considered the possibility, but ultimately agreed that an openly gay nominee would be “a big concern.” Sen. John Thune (R-SD) also said such an appointment “would be a bridge too far right now.” Focus on the Family surprised many by suggesting that it could, in fact, support a gay Justice. “The issue is not their sexual orientation. It’s whether they are a good judge or not,” spokesperson Bruce Hausknecht told The Plum Line in May of 2009.

With Justice John Paul Stevens now retiring, the question has been raised again. This time, however, Focus on the Family is not taking any chances. The group has issued a statement correcting “this mistake”:

It has been reported that we would not oppose any U.S. Supreme Court nominee over their ’sexual orientation.’ Our Judicial Analyst [Bruce Hausknecht] made a statement to this effect in an interview with The Plum Line. To be honest, this is one of those conversations we’d like to ‘do over.’ We can assure you that we recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent and desire for humanity. Further, we at Focus do affirm that character and moral rectitude should be key considerations in appointing members of the judiciary, especially in the case of the highest court in the land. Sexual behavior–be it heterosexual or homosexual–certainly lies at the heart of personal morality.

Focus on the Family may have come back to its usual homophobic positions, but will conservative Republicans follow? On Monday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said he would “have to think about” supporting an openly gay Justice. “As long as it doesn’t interfere with their job, it’s not a particular issue,” he said.

With Family’s reversal, how long will it take for Cornyn or any other Republican to remember that “homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent” and reverse himself?

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Economy

Gregg Calls Far Right’s ‘Permanent Bailouts’ Talking Point ‘A Touch Over The Top’

Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took to the Senate floor to declare his opposition to the financial reform bill before the Senate, claiming that it “institutionalizes” bailouts of Wall Street. In a press conference, he said the financial reform bill proposed by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) means “a permanent taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks,” “an endless taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks,” and “a perpetual taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks.” McConnell’s line of argument was echoed by many of his fellow Republicans.

But in an interview on CNN yesterday, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) admitted that the “open-ended bailouts” claim was “a touch over the top.” Watch it:

Time’s Adam Sorenson noted yesterday that McConnell’s false charge against financial reform “is the exact argument pollster Frank Luntz urged Republicans to make earlier this year in a widely publicized memo” that argued that “the single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the Big Bank Bailout.” On the Senate floor today, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) ripped into McConnell’s cynical use of Luntz talking points to protect Wall Street from reform:

DODD: To hear members of this body repeat the utter falsehoods concocted by special interests whose jobs and pensions are plenty secure, thank you very much, that this bill would lead to more bailouts. Frank Luntz suggested that allies of the big banks say, and I quote him, “if there’s one thing we can all agree on.” This is Frank Luntz talking. “If there is one thing we can all agree on, it’s that the bad decisions and harmful policies by Washington bureaucrats that in many ways led to the economic crash must never be repeated.” End of quote. The minority leader, speaking yesterday, let me quote him. “If there’s one thing Americans agree on when it comes to the financial reform, it’s this. Never again should taxpayers be expected to bailout Wall Street from its own mistakes. We cannot allow endless taxpayer bailouts for big Wall Street banks. And that’s why we must not pass the financial reform bill that’s about to hit the floor.” End of quote. Remember what Frank Luntz said. Quote, “the single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the big bank bailout.” End of quote. Mr. President, it’s straight from Wall Street special interest talking points!

Watch it:

Pat Garofalo explains that “neither the financial reform bill passed by the House of Representatives last year nor the one moving through the Senate makes bailouts ‘permanent.’ In fact, both include a resolution authority, aimed at unwinding systemically risky financial firms, and funded by assessments on the biggest firms themselves.” Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) told Ezra Klein today that McConnell “either doesn’t understand or chooses not to understand” the actual policy of financial reform.

Cross-posted on ThinkProgress.

Health

In Tough Economic Times, UnitedHealth CEO’s 2009 Compensation More Than Doubles

HempsleyBefore long, insurance companies will jack up premiums and blame the increases on rising medical costs and the new taxes in the health care reform law. And when they do, please remember that even during times of economic recession — when an increasing number of Americans are actually losing their coverage and insurers are shedding customers — insurers used your premium dollars to double the salaries of their CEOs.

WellPoint CEO Angela Braly’s total compensation for 2009 skyrocketed 51% from 2008 to $13.1 million, even as the company was requesting double digit premium increases in California to cover it’s “loses” and now Business Week is reporting that UnitedHealth CEO’s 2009 pay more than doubled:

UnitedHealth Group Inc. overcame a sluggish economy to manage 28 percent profit growth last year and rewarded CEO Stephen J. Hemsley by more than doubling his total compensation.

Hemsley, 57, received 2009 compensation valued at $8.9 million from the Minnetonka, Minn., managed care company, according to an Associated Press analysis of data filed with regulators Wednesday.

That included a salary of $1.3 million for the third straight year, a performance-based cash bonus of nearly $2 million and stock options and restricted stock valued at about $5.6 million on the days they were granted. He also received $86,916 in other compensation, including matching contributions to his 401(k) and executive savings plan.

In 2008, Hemsley received total compensation valued at $3.2 million. He saw no option awards that year or in 2007.

To be clear, insurers aren’t wrong to argue that health care spending increases premiums. They are wrong, however, in pretending that they are doing all they can to contain health care spending and that they’re taken unprecedented steps to lower their administrative costs and overhead.

Yglesias

Endgame

We’re gonna go go go:

— I don’t really like men’s singing voices and certainly the bulk of my favorite bands have woman singers.

— Tyler Cowen explains the centrality of positive liberty: “Let’s say the government tells me I have to buy and place a five-foot ceramic grizzly bear statue on my front lawn…”

— Neither mine safety nor climate change are remotely silly.

— Mitch McConnell’s pants are on fire.

— Paris Mayor wants to open up more Seine-proximate space for people, less for cars.

Yeah Yeah Yeahs, “Pin”

Politics

McConnell Tries To Dodge Repeated Questions About His Wall Street Fundraising

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been blasting the Senate’s financial regulatory reform bill in recent days, falsely arguing that it “institutionalizes” bailouts for Wall Street. As Think Progress reported, McConnell’s reason for opposing financial reform seems disingenuous in the face of reports that he attended a private fundraiser with hedge fund managers and other Wall Street elites last week.

Yesterday, reporters pressed McConnell for details about his meetings on Wall Street. McConnell repeatedly refused to discuss the matter and claimed that he based his opposition to financial reform not on fundraising from Wall Street but rather on concerns from community banks in Kentucky:

QUESTION: How do you push back against this perception that you’re doing the bidding of the large banks? There was a report that you guys met with hedge fund managers in New York. A lot of people are viewing this particular line of argument, this bailout argument as spin

MCCONNELL: You could talk to the community bankers in Kentucky.

BASH: I’m not asking you about the community bankers.

MCCONNELL: Well, I’m telling you about the community bankers in Kentucky.

QUESTION: Have you talked with other people other than community bankers?

MCCONNELL: Well, sure. We talk to people all the time. I’m not denying that. What’s wrong with that? That’s how we learn how people feel about legislation. But the community bankers in Kentucky, the little guys, the mainstreet guys, are overwhelmingly opposed to this bill.

QUESTION: What do you say to folks this is just meant to deflect attention from the fact your defending the large banks?

MCCONNELL: I’d say that’s innaccurate.

Watch it:

McConnell takes more money from the finance industry than any other sector. He has taken $1,147,924 for his current re-election campaign, including PAC contributions from megabanks like Citigroup and Bank of America.

Rather than confront these facts, McConnell has chosen to echo ready-made propaganda crafted by GOP public relations consultant Frank Luntz. McConnell’s talking points are even earning derision from media pundits. CNBC’s Ron Insana laughed when trying to explain McConnell’s views, and MSNBC’s John Harwood said that “Senator McConnell’s argument is a little silly when you look at the text of the bill.”

Justice

Focus On The Family Returns To Its Homophobia: We’re No Longer Open To A Gay SCOTUS Justice

tony-perkinsLast year, after Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his retirement, speculation mounted about whether President Obama could potentially appoint the first openly gay Justice. Conservatives were unsure how to respond to this possibility. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, initially considered the possibility, but ultimately agreed that an openly gay nominee would be “a big concern.” Sen. John Thune (R-SD) also said such an appointment “would be a bridge too far right now.” Focus on the Family surprised many by suggesting that it could, in fact, support a gay Justice. “The issue is not their sexual orientation. It’s whether they are a good judge or not,” spokesperson Bruce Hausknecht told The Plum Line in May of 2009.

With Justice John Paul Stevens now retiring, the question has been raised again. This time, however, Focus on the Family is not taking any chances. The group has issued a statement correcting “this mistake”:

It has been reported that we would not oppose any U.S. Supreme Court nominee over their ’sexual orientation.’ Our Judicial Analyst [Bruce Hausknecht] made a statement to this effect in an interview with The Plum Line. To be honest, this is one of those conversations we’d like to ‘do over.’ We can assure you that we recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent and desire for humanity. Further, we at Focus do affirm that character and moral rectitude should be key considerations in appointing members of the judiciary, especially in the case of the highest court in the land. Sexual behavior–be it heterosexual or homosexual–certainly lies at the heart of personal morality.

Focus on the Family may have come back to its usual homophobic positions, but will conservative Republicans follow? On Monday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said he would “have to think about” supporting an openly gay Justice. “As long as it doesn’t interfere with their job, it’s not a particular issue,” he said.

With Family’s reversal, how long will it take for Cornyn or any other Republican to remember that “homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent” and reverse himself?

Yglesias

Taxes vs Income Taxes

I’m going to agree with Jon Chait that confusion about exactly how many people pay how much in income tax is almost certainly driven by the fact that the situation is actually confusing:

Most people make no distinction between “income tax” and taxes, period. That’s why conservatives constantly harp on how much “income tax” is paid by the rich. They know full well that the vast majority of the audience will read “income tax” as “tax.” Indeed, conservative elites themselves often fall for their own rhetorical trick, getting a piece of information about “income taxes” and then restating it as “taxes.”

Now, there’s no good reason for people to confuse income taxes and the federal excise tax on alcohol. But the difference between the income tax and the payroll taxes associated with Social Security and Medicare is quite obscure. If you do what I do and put your tax information into Turbo Tax, it just adds everything up and tells you how much money you owe the IRS or how much the IRS owes you. I just filed my taxes a week ago, and actually have no idea how much of what I paid was income tax and how much was payroll tax. There are a lot of public policy matters on which I blame the public for its ignorance, but the fact that for most people most of the tax they pay on their income isn’t technically “income tax” is a genuinely puzzling situation and most people probably just assume that the term covers all taxes that are assed on your income.

Politics

Inhofe: There aren’t any ‘normal people’ in Washington.

inhofe4During the 2008 campaign, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin famously remarked that “small towns” represent “the real America” where people are “pro-America.” Last month, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) suggested that “MoveOn.org people” are not “real people.” Following in their footsteps, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) told a local radio station in Oklahoma today that he looks forward to getting back to the state because there aren’t any “normal people” in Washington:

INHOFE: Well I was in town last week there, in Okmulgee, and I’ll be back this weekend to Oklahoma and look forward to visiting with the normal people that I find in Oklahoma because there aren’t any here in Washington.

Listen here:

While Washigton’s median income is slightly higher than the national average, the city has one of the highest poverty rates in the country and is quite diverse. Maybe Inhofe should get off C Street and explore all the “normal” parts of the city.

Security

Conservatives Debate: Is Obama’s Mother’s Taste In Men Relevant To The War Against Islamofascists?

There’s a bizarre conversation going on between a number conservative writers over the right hysterical tone to take against Barack Obama’s insidious agenda, kicked off by this from Human Events’ First Things’ David Goldman:

I’ve been screaming about this for more than two years: Obama is the loyal son of a left-wing anthropologist mother who sought to expiate her white guilt by going to bed with Muslim Third World men. He is a Third World anthropologist studying us, learning our culture and our customs the better to neutralize what he considers to be a malignant American influence in world affairs.

Commentary’s John Podhoretz called this “disgusting“:

In the first place, Obama is not responsible for his mother or her political views, any more than Ronald Reagan should have been be held accountable for the fact that his father was a drunk. In the second place, Goldman’s speculation about her sexual history is appalling in about a hundred different ways. [...]

The opposition to Barack Obama needs to keep its wits. His domestic-policy proposals and foreign-policy ideas constitute a profound challenge to the good working order of the United States and the world. Spewing repellent nonsense about Obama’s mother and spinning bizarre notions about his innate foreignness — when he is in fact the possessor of one of the great and enduring American stories, and is in his own person a demonstration of precisely the kind of American exceptionalism that Obama so pointedly pooh-poohs — can be used to discredit his opposition.

Then Michael Ledeen intervened to defend Goldman, who Ledeen assures us “has offered plenty of evidence to explain why he believes” these things, and claims that Podhoretz “would have done better if had taken a bit of time to study the facts of Obama’s life“:

It’s surely important to pay attention to biography, as John no doubt agrees in calmer moments. I don’t understand his complaint about “speculation about…sexual history.” It’s not speculative to say that she married a Kenyan and then an Indonesian, and produced children from both. [...]

The character of our president is an important matter. I think both John and David have tried to illuminate it, but I wish John had taken more time with his latest tirade, gotten the facts right, and focused his considerable talent on the serious matters that rightly concern us.

Commentary’s Peter Wehner weighs in to agree with Podhoretz. Yes, the same Peter Wehner who recently stated that President Obama “simply doesn’t hold this nation in very high esteem.”

Human Events’ First Things’ Joseph Bottum steps in to squash the beef, agreeing with Podhoretz that all of their thinking “stem[s] from the same root—a conviction that the West is under ideological assault and needs defending from its Islamofascist enemies.”

So, for those of you keeping score at home: The “crazy” side of this debate (Goldman, Ledeen) believes that President Obama’s mother’s choice of male companions is hugely relevant to understanding his plans for surrendering to the Islamofascists. The “sane” side (Podhoretz, Wehner) thinks that President Obama’s mother’s choice of male companions is irrelevant to the fact that President Obama doesn’t like America very much.

When this is the state of the debate among “serious, mainstream” conservatives, is it really any wonder that the sign below is a regular feature at tea parties?

obama-racist-latest

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up